> That's because I'm stupid and lazy. Look, Ted, I'm outta here. What part of
> Last Word from Me don't you understand? --jks
I understand it perfectly well. You use the claim that your "outta here" to try to get out of defending the mistaken assertions you then proceed to make. It doesn't work. Now your resorting to pure ad hominem.
> - Marx's argument starts from "individual people". If they are
>> "universally developed individuals" they have all the incentives you
>> mention.
>
> Credo quia absurdam.
This illustrates my previous point.
I realize that this is your credo. That's why you can't see the simple logical point that you can't use the consistency of Hayek's argument to demonstrate the inconsistency of Marx's when Marx starts from radically different premises.
> You should say "talk about internal relations is absolutely no
>> help" *to you*. Your assumption that if you don't understand a concept it
>> must be "obscurantist" is mistaken.
>>
>
> Your assumptions about what I assume are part of the reason I'm gone. Bye
> bye. jks>
Does it have something to do with the fact that I then proceeded to show that the concept is not, as you had previously claimed, "obscurantist" and that this style of "argument" matches Popper's? This point, of course, you omit to answer. Do you still maintain the concept is "obscurantist"?
You're a person of far too many "last words".
Ted